Talk:Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Criticism of the IPCC AR4)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change   
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : # Clarify copyright status of File:Arctic September Sea Ice Extent.png
    1. Identify more recent graphic of sea ice extent
    2. Gain consensus to remove the discussion of the 2350 date, which may be a red herring

National Snow and Ice Data Center Graph[edit]

Does anyone else feel that a graph that has an axis that points downward is misleading? By having the axis at a 3D angle such is shown, a constant value would be represented by a line pointing downwards. Any chance we could get a graph that isn't so biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjansson (talkcontribs) 09:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not the best graph for the job due to the perspective, but I think it is very important to have a graphic that shows just how seriously the IPCC report underestimated the rate of Arctic sea ice melt. For instance, the Australian Climate Commission (an official government body) published a report in 2011 called The Critical Decade, which has a suitable image in Figure 4. Unfortunately, this is (a) under copyright and (b) only extends to 2008, but it gives the idea of what we're looking for. (Also, I haven't yet learned how to upload an image to Wikipedia, though I'm sure there are easy guides to be found and I will look them up if I come across the right graph to use here.) EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Arctic Sea ice melt[edit]

I think this section needs an update. There are an increasing number of studies suggesting a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean not just by 2100, but well before that. The current section quotes a CNN article reporting on a NCAR and NSIDC report from 2007. So much has happened in Arctic research since 2007. Google Scholar returns over 16,000 results from "Arctic sea ice decline" since 2008. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Open letter from scientists[edit]

@Nigelj: Hi, I just checked the Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Open_letter_from_scientists section you added a long time ago and I have some questions if you don't mind.

  1. The section talks about this letter (signed by 4 scientists) but uses as a source this other one. About the first one, I could not find a better source than that link to a PDF, which tells me it is definitely not notable. There are a number of articles like this one which talk about the first letter but state that it has more than 150 signatures, which is definitely not true (perhaps confusing it with the second letter?)
  2. Why was this added here in the first place? The letter is one of support to climate scientists and their conclusions about anthropogenic climate change and has very little criticism if any.

I believe the best course would be to remove the section in its entirety. What do you think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the letter in the Grauniad is clearly a response to criticisms. I've summarised it accurately to see if that works better: perhaps the title should be changed to make it clear that this is a defence against criticisms. The list of signatories and their membership of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences makes this pretty notable. On investigation, the earlier letter is also notable: the four names are authors, including very eminent climatologists, and its list shows 248 additional signatories, again with good names. Worth citing properly and restoring a summary. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gaba. March 2010 was a long time ago. I'm surprised to see the German page now on the original link. Thanks to Dave for the link to the archived version. It certainly seemed relevant at the time, and I still feel that some response to the criticisms presented here is warranted if good references exist. On the other hand, I'm not personally attached either to the form or the sourcing of this response. --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
With the modification made by Dave souza the section is looking much better now. The thing that confused me the most was the quoting of the first letter and the usage of the second one a source. I agree that the first letter should also be mentioned as Dave points out and the name of the section definitely changed to make it clear it's a response to criticism, not two letters criticizing the IPCC's report. How about simply naming it "Response to criticism"? Or "Scientists response to criticism"? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it's worth briefly noting the first letter, and one of these titles would be appropriate: probably "criticisms" rather than "criticism". Offtopically, Grauniad#References in popular culture is something of a tradition. . dave souza, talk 22:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I should know better than to mess with other editor's comments, back to the original word. I'll try adding something about the first letter. So which title would you guys prefer? Gaba (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, I've revamped the section adding quite a bit of info. Dave souza & Nigelj please tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically looks ok to me, I've added in two other authors of the earlier statement as Stephen Schneider is probably the best known, and it seems to underweight it if we just name one. . dave souza, talk 18:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)